On 7/18/07, John Thomas <gmane-2006-04-16 at jt-socal.com> wrote: > Thank you for your comments, Jim. Oh if there's one thing I'll do, it's offer my opinion, whether you want it or not. :-P > Does this make the best "protect strategy" epel before rpmforge (i.e. > yum should check in epel and if it is not in there, check rpmforge)? You can do this if you'd like. I'd put rpmforge higher up, simply because it's been around for ages, and has been proven in the community. > > RPMForge and centos play very nicely together and the developers of > > both projects are in frequent contact. > Is RedHat in this loop? Perhaps epel is Rehat's attempt to force a > bigger division between it and CentOS? Yeah, there's enough political junk in this one to make me NOT comment for once. EPEL is a good idea, but the implementation has left something to be desired. > > > Testing is just that. Don't use it if you're worried about possible breakage. > > ATrpms has some hard-to-find packages, but can replace system packages > > which can potentially cause issues. > Thanks, does it make sense to include these, but with a low priority > protection and, if so, which should be the lowest scoundrel ;)? I wouldn't include testing unless you need something from it, or are testing packages to help out the community. ATrpms I tend to only use for dedicated boxes (mythtv etc) so I can't comment on mixing it with others. > In that regard, which is better, protectbase or priorities? Priorities, though it's more cumbersome. -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell